Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 8:46 am

Could you please give me a link to the latest survey supporting this conclusion.

Mike
they're listed umpteen times in this thread.

The Cycling Promotion Fund/ Heart Foundation Cycling-Survey-2011-Riding-a-Bike-for-Transport has more accessible data (if still incomplete) found that 15% to 18% of people mentioned MHLs as a barrier. I did the analysis several years back in this thread but, based on the statistics, that a million trips a month (if my memory serves me).

RAC WA 2015 reported by them in their magazine (2016) that 31% of respondents referred to MHLs as a barrier. The published report did not mention MHLs but has a barrier labelled as "other" at approximately this size.

The latest is Bicycle Network's survey of 2018 which also found 30% of people would ride more without MHLs. Like the RAC their data and methods are not publically available

There's a bunch of resources (some need a touch of salt) at https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html

The bottom line goes to the BMJ (Goldacre, B; Spiegelhalter, D (2013) DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f3817) which unfortunately, is paywalled today.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:15 am

human909 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 10:54 am

Table 5.

Ahhh missed it, I was reading the notes.

2.4% of respondents nominated helmets as a barrier.

Where are you getting that 2.4% figure from?

Table 5 says that 16.5% of respondents who had ridden for transport in the past month, nominated MHL as a reason that they don't ride more frequently.

And, Table 11 says the 15.7% of respondents who would like to be able to cycle for transport or short trips, nominated MHL as a reason that they don't.

I used Math?

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 2:05 pm

I used Math?

Good to know. And if you outline your calculations then we can scrutinize them, because I get a different result. Much more importantly however, even if your calculations are correct, they do not imply the conclusion that you made. (I will explain that later).

When I tried to repeat your calculations this is what I got.

Table 10. Would you like to be able to ride a bike for transport or short trips. 61.2% of response base n=842. This corresponds to 0.612*842 = 515 people.

Table 11. Reasons why you don't ride for transport or short trips. MHL cited as 15.7% of this base of responders, corresponding to 0.157*515 = 81 people.

So if you want that as a percent of the total population surveyed, that's 8.1%.

So we disagree. The difference is, I've been up front and posted all the tables referenced and calculation used. You however seem to be deliberately coy.

More importantly though, in your comparison of the oft quoted 30% initial reduction due to MHL and your 2.4% figure (where ever you got that from), is that they correspond to different bases so are not even directly comparable. If there was indeed a 30% initial reduction post MHL, then that figure would have corresponded to 30% of the cyclist at the time, not 30% of the entire population. So you were either being deliberately misleading or you are are making some pretty novice mistakes re the statistics.

I used table 5, as nominated by human. I wasn’t aware of any other info on any other tables, and what you’re saying is probably correct re table 10 and 11....I have no reason to call you a liar. I’ll have a look

Anyway, table 5. Savves?

Survey total: 1,000

Around 60% of respondents stated they own or have access to a bike.

600

Two in five respondents that owned or had access to a bike had ridden a bike in the past month

240

Of these, 60% had ridden a bike for transport purposes.

144

Table 5

NOT RIDING A BIKE FOR TRANSPORT MORE OFTEN

Respondents who had ridden a bike for transport in the past month were asked what discourages them from riding a bike for transport more often.

Don’t like wearing a helmet: 16.5%

That’s 16.5% of 144 riders.

24 riders

1,000 people surveyed. 24 cited helmets as a deterrent.

That’s 2.5% of people surveyed isn’t it?

If I’m wrong, point it out so I don’t make that mistake again. I hate looking like a dumbass so soon after my New Year’s Eve resolutions

Edit....your second assertion re comparing numbers I’m not sure I understand. Clarify please? You may well be right but I’m not sure about what?

fat and old you are constantly swapping denominators and coming to the wrong conclusion. Please stop twisting things around.

human909 wrote: ↑

Sat Jan 04, 2020 4:27 pm

fat and old you are constantly swapping denominators and coming to the wrong conclusion. Please stop twisting things around.

Human if I am wrong it’s because I have made a mistake, not twisting things around. There’s a difference and I’m sure you know that.

Show me where I’ve made the incorrect assumption. I am not a statistician so maybe a little understanding from your end rather than accusations would help. I was prepared to show how I’ve come to my conclusion, reciprocate.

Why is Australia the only place removing bike share schemes? Could it be that we have helmet laws and almost all other countries don't?

Are Australian drivers really that much worse than drivers in other countries? If so, why are cyclists the ones who have to suffer for this?

Someone explain to me why having to put a sweaty lump of largely useless foam on one's head in one of the hotter countries on this planet (and getting hotter) would not be a discouragement.

DS

I note that one poster has modified his post re the Heart Foundation survey, and as a result has come up with a lower figure than initially (and still present in a preceding post) offered. Well and good. Maybe both of us are using the wrong interpretations here? Human, any comments on the other post? Are we both making mistakes or is it still only me?

I also note that this was done through an edit after I put up my figures, with no explanation nor acknowledgement that his figures were incorrect in the first place. Notwithstanding that, the text remains as was in the first place.

So we disagree. The difference is, I've been up front and posted all the tables referenced and calculation used. You however seem to be deliberately coy.

So I have been opaque and coy, while someone who edits out a mistake with no explanation is upfront.

Shades of Rissell anyone?

This, Along with the uninformed claim that Melbourne is the only place to remove bikeshare facilities because like...helmets you know!.....does the pro-cycling cause no good at all.

fat and old wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:33 am

I note that one poster has modified his post re the Heart Foundation survey, and as a result has come up with a lower figure than initially (and still present in a preceding post) offered.

I also note that this was done through an edit after I put up my figures, with no explanation nor acknowledgement that his figures were incorrect in the first place. Notwithstanding that, the text remains as was in the first place.

So we disagree. The difference is, I've been up front and posted all the tables referenced and calculation used. You however seem to be deliberately coy.

So I have been opaque and coy, while someone who edits out a mistake with no explanation is upfront.

Shades of Rissell anyone?

Are you talking about me? If so then say so.
I edited my above post to fix a minor type (I left out a percent sign), and that was the *only* change I made.

Prior to the edit my post read:
Table 11. Reasons why you don't ride for transport or short trips. MHL cited as 15.7 of this base of responders, corresponding to 0.157*515 = 81 people.

While it's obvious from the context that the "15.7" figure was a percent, I decided to correct it anyway. So it now reads:
Table 11. Reasons why you don't ride for transport or short trips. MHL cited as 15.7% of this base of responders, corresponding to 0.157*515 = 81 people.

So yeah, if you want to be pedantic I changed 15.7 to 15.7%, a factor of 100 different. Wow!

Mike Ayling wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 02, 2020 8:28 am

The decline of cycling caused by MHL is ignored.

Is this still the case that after 30 or so years people do not wish to cycle because they have to wear a helmet?

Mike

I doubt it stops anyone from going MTB, road riding, or even commuting - but I'm quite convinced it's one of the most significant reasons why no one rides anywhere local any more. We just drive because it's easier.

uart wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:47 am

Are you talking about me? If so then say so.

I’m trying not to be personal. If you prefer I take a direct, accusatory approach then cool. I can do that. Just don’t claim “personal attack” if I do.

If that was the substance of your change then again, cool. Perhaps explain it when you change things to avoid misunderstandings. Or don’t, meh.

So anyway, where’s my mistake?

So anyway, where’s my mistake?
Well, I would suggest you need to focus on the 70% that just don't care and not the 30% who seem to. Not much data debate around that.
Look at the mess we are in with the libs cowtailing to the very few in regard to climate change.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:01 pm

So anyway, where’s my mistake?
Well, I would suggest you need to focus on the 70% that just don't care and not the 30% who seem to. Not much data debate around that.
Look at the mess we are in with the libs cowtailing to the very few in regard to climate change.

If you mean that efforts to engage the people who don’t care about MHL and don’t see it as an issue should be made, then maybe so. I question the use of the limited resources and goodwill that advocates have for that, but fair enough.

If you are referring to the people in general that are not interested in cycling at all then that’s another matter.

TBH I’m not sure what the 70/30 split refers to.

this was quoted above...RAC WA 2015 reported by them in their magazine (2016) that 31% of respondents referred to MHLs as a barrier. The published report did not mention MHLs but has a barrier labelled as "other" at approximately this size.

In the real world people just want to be safe on the road and would prefer to listen to tinnitus than the preaching of the data freaks of all things MHL.

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:22 pm

In the real world people just want to be safe on the road and would prefer to listen to tinnitus than the preaching of the data freaks of all things MHL.

And whose fault would that be? All those MHL stalwarts who prattle "show us the numbers", "show us the evidence", blah, blah, baa.

Unlike you whose eyes light up when you meet dutch tourists who fully embrace MHLs. In my real world my wife rode a bicycle everyday when we lived in Singapore for short trips and taking the kids to school - in Australia she won't wear a helmet and won't ride a bicycle. My brother rides often in Thailand for short trips but when he visited Australia he refused to ride a bicycle to quote "I'm not going to wear a dork hat".

Makes my eyes go dull.

Yeah, yeah, I know if they can't be bothered wearing a helmet they don't deserve to ride a bicycle.

tpcycle wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:51 pm

baabaa wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 6:22 pm

In the real world people just want to be safe on the road and would prefer to listen to tinnitus than the preaching of the data freaks of all things MHL.

And whose fault would that be? All those MHL stalwarts who prattle "show us the numbers", "show us the evidence", blah, blah, baa.

It may be a result of this thread being my only exposure to the MHL debate, but it’s the anti-MHL advocates that leap to the numbers and stats. In fact, I’ve never seen any forum group use numbers and statistics as much as cyclists do. Kinda makes the whole “ I just wanna use my bike” idea seem silly. If that’s the case, then just ride the thing.

Nobody told me I had to do a double in mech engineering AND stats to have a good time.

I didn't point out your previous errors because they had already been adequately pointed out by Uart.

Also I am in no way beholden to that particular survey. I was merely using it as evidence in a response to a previouse post that MHLs are STILL a barrier. I was not presenting it as a definitive quantitative source.

Regarding the use of numbers on forums. You must hang out on different forums than I do.... Be it computer geeks, petrol heads or rock climbers I see plenty more numbers in forums posts.

When it comes of MHLs. I'd say it is the promoters that closely hug the mathematics and statistics.

Most helmet choice advocates found their arguments mostly on libertarian views and reduced barriers to cycling. Neither of which need numbers to argue. Unless you have academics pushing false narratives with numbers and you constantly find yourself disputing misuse of statistics.

Well "In my real world" includes sit down one-on-one and then small meetings with the NSW Premier and also the Federal Opposition leader to lobby to change MHL legislation or if possible any options which may soften the policing and penalties.
In broader meetings which have including govt bureaucrat, when the the data freaks (on both sides) and the numbers they cherish come out, the notebooks start to close and the meetings are more or less over as any common sense goes out the window.
BTW I am just back from Vietnam cutting my trip short because of the fires here. I tend to wear a helmet more overseas than I do in Aust. This is largely because if I do come off, I don't wish to be a burden in any way on any remote communities for some white privileged bloke with a knock to the head. Also a tip, become a warmshowers host, it may open your eyes on what others outside your family feel about riding a bike in Aust.

Those advocating repealing of MHLs recognise that it is better to walk before you can run. It is hard enough to open the minds of cycling friendly Greens politicians let alone the mainstream parties. MHLs did manage get reviewed by the Senate Economics References Committee

In case anybody has forgotten it was quite damning of MHLs. But like lots of inquiries, committees, plans, Royal Commissions, Coronal reports the government can still choose to ignore it all.

Additional Comments
Senator David Leyonhjelm – Liberal Democratic Party
1.1 While I endorse the committee view that a consistent and comprehensive
national data set should be established and this data would inform any evaluation of
the outcomes of cycling safety programs and enable a cost-benefit assessment of MHL
to be undertaken, I wish to make some further comments and some concrete
recommendations.
1.2 During the course of the hearing, and based on available data, it became clear
MHL have undermined cycling participation rates. Attempts to argue to the contrary,
especially given evidence from around the world, were not at all persuasive.
1.3 It was also impossible to ignore both the more relaxed approach to MHL
taken in the Northern Territory and the recommendations of Queensland's Transport,
Housing and Local Government Committee (discussed in the committee's interim
report).
1.4 I anticipate a cost benefit study would show the impact of MHL to be
negative, given the low prevalence of cyclist head injury (notwithstanding the
seriousness of individual TBI cases) and the negative effects of the policy.

human909 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:55 pm

I didn't point out your previous errors because they had already been adequately pointed out by Uart.

Also I am in no way beholden to that particular survey. I was merely using it as evidence in a response to a previouse post that MHLs are STILL a barrier. I was not presenting it as a definitive quantitative source.

Re the errors....there's no errors regarding the 2.5% figure, just in the way I compared then and now? I can cop that. And I don't assume that you are beholden to any survey. You put it up, I looked at it. End of story.

When it comes of MHLs. I'd say it is the promoters that closely hug the mathematics and statistics.

Most helmet choice advocates found their arguments mostly on libertarian views and reduced barriers to cycling. Neither of which need numbers to argue.

Then you need to review this thread. 4th post in, Rissel is quoted (obviously by an Antifa )

One final point is about the way we talk about risk. The case-control studies that indicate that cyclists with head injuries admitted to hospital without helmets might have an increased-odds ratio of likelihood of injury of 20 or 30 per cent compared to wearing helmets make the risk seem higher than they really are.

The next reference to stats is 37 posts in, 2nd page

<headline>
Cars injure English kids 1,000 times more often than helmetlesseness kills Dutch cyclists
</headline>
Slighly less sensationalist analysis from David Hembrow

Followed by this request

Perhaps this thread could at least try to capture various reports and references to studies? At least between the adhomien attacks and petty bickering

both by another anti MHL'er

Now I don't see an issue with this tbh, esp with regards to the request made by Thoglette. Any attempt to keeps things honest, on point and accurate is a good thing. I just have an issue with

human909 wrote:Unless you have academics pushing false narratives with numbers and you constantly find yourself disputing misuse of statistics.

Substitute "academics" with "forum members who use selective parts of studies or who make wide sweeping statements based on an incorrect understanding of the information in front of them" or "Chris Rissel". It happens on both sides of the argument.

H909 plenty of people ignore everything that former senator said. Sure he wasn't the worst senator, but gee that's a low bar

I'm in S.E Melbourne, and ride most days, I see more people riding without a helmet than with one on, If the law was being inforced I don't think I would be seeing this.

1Rowdy1 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:19 am

I'm in S.E Melbourne, and ride most days, I see more people riding without a helmet than with one on, If the law was being inforced I don't think I would be seeing this.

In some regions it is vigorously pursued and in others it is virtually ignored. The enforcement is very inconsistently applied, which is a sign of a bad law in my opinion.

1Rowdy1 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:19 am

I'm in S.E Melbourne, and ride most days, I see more people riding without a helmet than with one on, If the law was being inforced I don't think I would be seeing this.

Same in the North and N/W.

And on the Peninsula atm.....even tho the fatso, leano and everything inbetweeno cyclists are pounding away at Pt Nepean Rd in plague numbers the trailer park foreshore camper cyclists almost outnumber them. Helmets are absolutely optional for everyone over 18.

Actually, I came across a young fella yesty riding along, on his lonesome. Couldn't be older than 5 or 6. He displayed some of the best situational awareness I've seen. Serious, and what's more as a car would come closer in the carparks he'd ring his bell to let them know he was there. Some excellent parenting has gone on there.